Kean Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Kean Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > The full list of bugs is produced below. Maintainers, please | > look | > | > into any of those and see which ones you can fix or give guidance for | > | > fixes in ways that are suitable for a stable branch. | > | Do I still have time / opportunity to refresh the SCO ports? | > This being a stable release branch, I'll consider only regressions | > fixes. Is that the case? | I guess it depends on how pedantic we want to define | 'regression'. I did a mostly-working port circa 3.4.1, but | it had some problems, but teh last known-to-be-working-well | port was 2.95.3. I have people baying for 3.4 all the time. | So its technicalyl a regression from 2.95.3, and almost one | from 3.4.1 :)
Here is how Mark and I have agreed on those sort of things. If such a patch is accepted in 3.4.x but not in 4.0.x, then we've introduced a regression in 4.0.x. So, the way we deal with it is that, the patch is first applied to 4.0.x, then to 3.4.x retrospectively. Is that workable for you? (I applied a more enthusiastic policy for 3.3.3, but that is only because of the particularity of the 3.3.x series when I took it). -- Gaby
